Feel Attacked? The Most Powerful Defense You'll Ever Have

Whenever someone turns on you, there’s one thing you can do that, almost immediately, will emotionally protect you. If, that is, you can do it immediately. And this little recognized mode of self-defense should work whether your hair-trigger reaction is feeling hurt, guilty, devalued, distrusted, disrespected, rejected, offended, insulted—or whatever. But this remarkable defense—which, finally, isn’t really a “defense” at all—is extremely elusive. For when you get your buttons pushed, it’s doubtful that responding in the way I’ll be describing would ever occur to you. If you’re like most people, in the moment of psychological upset you’re far more likely to succumb to the urge either to directly defend yourself or to counterattack your “assailant.”

This post is about training yourself—in the very second you realize you’re beginning to lose your cool—to ask yourself a question: A question that almost no one even considers posing to themselves. And it’s not about yourself at all, but about the one who provoked you. Here it is:

“Before this person pushed my button, which one of their buttons might I have pushed?”

What makes this self-query so stunningly powerful is that it instantaneously enables you to detach from your internal distress and refocus your attention on what’s going on outside yourself. If you view, say, the criticism or cutting remark as primarily reflecting something about the other person, you don’t have to remain nervous, angry, or feel bad about yourself—in short, “take on” the negativity apparently aimed at you.

Shifting from the role of reactive “emotionalist” to that of scientist, you’re actually training your brain to stay with the more adult, rational, part of your self in order not to let the present situation get the better of you. By depersonalizing the “drama” of the moment, you maintain the authority to be the sole judge of your actions—rather than allowing the other person’s comments to add to any doubts you may still harbor about yourself. Obviously, if these doubts were non-existent, you’d be pretty much immune to their criticism’s sting, and so not experience their unfavorable evaluation as threatening.

As regards the other person, odds are that they turned on you in the first place because—however indirectly (and it might be far more circuitous than you could ever imagine!)—what you said or did felt threatening to them. So endeavoring to grasp where they might be coming from can help you begin to formulate new insights into the psychological dynamic that motivated their “retaliatory” behavior. And there are questions you can ask them that, if asked in the right way, might reveal why they were provoked—before, in turn, they provoked you.

I realize that so far this exposition may well seem overly abstract. So let me provide a concrete example to illustrate what such averting or rechanneling of someone’s verbal attack might look like. Still, I can hardly overemphasize that mastering the art and logic of this method is likely to take considerable practice. But if you’re sufficiently patient to develop this advanced communication skill, the end result will probably astound you.

The sample case below deals specifically with a couple. But the approach depicted could readily be adapted for use with one’s children, parents, employees, co-workers, etc.:

Frank glances at the latest credit card statement, which is much higher than usual, and blows up—angrily accusing his wife, Sue, of being a selfish spendthrift and squandering the family’s resources. Ordinarily, Sue would get angry herself (her “not-being-trusted” button having been pushed) and protest that none of her purchases were unnecessary or exorbitant. And that if Frank would take the time to carefully review the charges, he’d see that every single expenditure was justified—given that their three children have desperately needed new clothes, as well as supplies, for the upcoming school year.

Instead, however, Sue turns to Frank and says: “If you look at the charges on the bill, I think you’ll see they reflect expenses we’d already discussed. . . . But, frankly, I wonder if whether what’s really bothering you is that you can’t stop thinking about the fact that your company has been laying off people because of the terrible economy we’re in. Just the other day you told me you were beginning to feel insecure about your position and worrying whether you could be the next to go. Is this what’s coming up for you now? Do we maybe need to talk some more about this? . . ."

The next part of this retort is optional—but in certain instances it could further modify Frank's blaming perspective: “. . . and I’m also thinking about what you told me in the past about your parents’ being so critical of you whenever you bought anything they thought you didn’t really have to have. Did you maybe feel that I was being indulgent in a way that—had it been you—would definitely have made your parents come down on you like a ton of bricks? Could that be coming up for you, too?—almost needing to get mad at me to separate yourself from me, ‘cause what you thought I did running up the bill might somehow have reminded you of how your parents always got on your case for spending too much money?"

Note that in this example, the wife simply doesn’t permit her husband’s anger to center on her. On the contrary, she offers only a brief explanation of her credit card expenditure and then redirects the interaction to focus on him and which of his buttons might have gotten pushed when he eyed the statement’s bottom line (i.e., pressing his “I'm out-of-control-of-our-finances” button). As a result, the husband, feeling understood and sympathized with, would be unlikely to continue in the same accusatory vein. In fact, he’s even being invited to ventilate more about his work-related anxieties—probably at the very core of his present upset and what he needs most to be talking about.

Remember, just because your partner is being emotionally reactive doesn't mean you have to be, too. (As in, "It takes two to tango.")

Space limitations prevent me from offering additional examples here. But hopefully, this single representation will suggest the manifold benefits of responding to another’s provocation by immediately asking yourself which of their buttons, however unintentionally, may have just gotten pushed. Might it be an “I-have-to-be-perfect” button (for they can’t allow themselves to make a mistake, so you can’t either); an “everything-must-be-in-its-place” button (for in growing up, parental approval pivoted on being neat and orderly); an “I-can’t-take-risks” button (for being daring and adventurous got associated with putting oneself in serious jeopardy); and so on.

To conclude, if you can get yourself to quickly change course in confrontational situations—and play detective rather than defendant—I think you’ll find that conflicts which previously were extremely discomfiting are much easier to deal with. They’ll also offer you a truly intriguing challenge: one that can be as creative as it is constructive. Not that this method will work with everyone, for those with really serious anger problems—or with a Ph.D. in Denial and Stonewalling!—may simply be unreachable. And that’s why, in certain cases, calling a “Time Out” may be your only recourse. But in more “normal” instances, the approach I’ve delineated should work just fine.

This is a wonderful tool to use in the heat of the moment to avoid further escalation. When we allow ourselves to get caught up in the 'heat' we lose sight of what we are really arguing about.-PsychedinSF

...if a partner took this tactic with me, I would be really annoyed. I would expect someone (rightly or wrongly) to assume that what I am saying the problem is, is what the problem is. I don't really want my partner to be an amateur psychologist, trying to divine the REAL basis of my complaint and addressing that instead of what I have brought up.

And I really don't want that job description for myself either. Perhaps a better response would be: "We have discussed every expense on the credit card bill before I charged them. Is there anything else bothering you?" At least that gives the other person an opportunity to delve into their OWN motivations, instead of me doing it for them.

Maybe there are different ways of using this tool but in my experience, we have tried this method before and i know it does not work for us. In a past incident when i got angry at my spouse, he have talked to me this way and i became even more angry after he made the comment that it might be something else that is bothering me. I felt even more angry because instead of addressing the issue i raised about his behavior, i felt like he is trying to avoid taking the responsibility and make it like it is my problem. Talking this way actually made us escalate our arguments and we both felt more frustrated afterwards. In the heat of an argument, i think the best approach should still be the "time out" approach so both party can cool down.

The strategy discussed works for some. It involves a lot of emotional and intellectual effort, may lead down roads that neither is ready to traverse, and ease the other person while burdening and/or producing resentment in you for leaving the actual accusation hanging. The most comfortable protective response depends on your mood. If the criticism irritates or angers, bluntly reply with your honest perception of the situation. This might escalate the tension but no need to argue; just listen and rationally answer. If the accuser disparages, gets repetitive, or says irrational things to provoke, ignore them or remove yourself from the vicinity.
If you're feeling compassionate or affectionate at the time, show sympathetic understanding of the person's complaint and motive, and try to reach a diplomatic solution.
If you're tired at the moment, just say "Mm-hmmm" while going about your business, no undivided attention given.
Whatever reaction you choose, never absorb negative energy, or criticism as truth unless you believe it is so. Keep in mind we're all equal with the same fallible, perishable gray brain matter. What works with those you have no type of relationship investment in: relegate that person and their words to immediate mental non-existence...blip! Like the Peanuts cartoon.

hurts, no matter how you try to avoid it. My question to myself is : Is this MY stuff, or THEIR stuff. As someone who is an advocate for the abused....in ongoing verbal abuse, this technique could not work.

Sorry, but I would flip out if someone tried this on me. Like previous posters said, it is basically saying that the problem is not in fact what I say it is, but something in myself... I would say that most of the time, if I am telling someone that I am upset because of something I felt that they did, 99.9% of the time it is because of something I felt that they did. If you are involved with someone that is just starting arguments because of some internal damage, then there are way bigger issues.
Secondly, this tactic would never work when you A) know nothing about the other person really and B) most importantly, when you are not equals in certain environments (e.g. your boss). For example, my boss comes in out of nowhere puts the blame on me for his mistakes when I have done everything in my power to do a good job. I would never be able to say, "hmm, boss, are you sure that you aren't just mad because you know you are the one that made the mistake and not really just mad at yourself?" Not in a million years.
Third, this sounds very manipulative, and borderline emotionally abusive.
I have been taught to really diffuse a situation, you should never use "YOU" and always use "I". This seems to be the exact opposite.

I wanted to say that I pretty much agree with ALL the caveats that commenters have made about my post. In my writing I was essentially referring to instances in which the button-pusher's own buttons--and psychological defenses relating to same--were not to the degree that the individual simply couldn't be reached through rational means. But, of course, it's true that when the attacker's fundamental issues are more serious, neither this method--nor ANY other assertive method--is likely to be effective . . . and could actually worsen the situation.

The problem with posts like this is that it's just not tenable to qualify each point as would be necessary in a scholarly journal. But at least I DID re-write the last paragraph in the effort to respond positively to the legitimacy of the comments I've seen so far.

Oy mr. Seltzer, a phd in the classroom maybe but to speak this way in the home? The wife will think I'm a putz. Best to say yes dear and talk about it later... few words, delivered with some softness, and not trying to figure out what's happening in her. This is a recipe for codependence.

the main point--a technique for circumventing a spiraling down or spinning out when someone attacks you or pushes your buttons--the main point that it's useful to consider that there are two people involved and that the "attacker" has his/her own issues that we may not be aware of (probably not aware of) is very useful. In other words, don't take everything personally! Also, as the writer says, when you feel attacked it means the words have hit a tender place, an issue you haven't resolved, and so you take it in because you already do this to yourself. It's an old habit, and these old habits are hard to break. I appreciate just being reminded that what the other person has said may not be true. And if it's true, it may not be as colossal or global as we make it. ... I don't know about the technique of suggesting to the other person that there may be something else going on would work--the objections other people made to this make a lot of sense to me. It seems like adding fuel to the fire. The main thing, to me, is taking a moment (should we have the self-awareness to do this) to STOP and not just swallow what's coming at you.